COAKLEY: “The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”

Is this also her official position as state Attorney General of the Bay State? Catholic medical professionals might want to ask.

Also of interest: Coakley’s comments in the same interview about her role in the notorious rape case of a 23-month-old toddler. The comments begin at about the 6:30 mark. She suggests that the mother of the child may have been “potentially guilty in that case” — which begs the question (unasked by the host) of why Coakley didn’t pursue criminal charges against her:

Attorney General Martha Coakley—who had proven so dedicated a representative of the system that had brought the Amirault family to ruin, and who had fought so relentlessly to preserve their case—has recently expressed her view of this episode. Questioned about the Amiraults in the course of her current race for the U.S. Senate, she told reporters of her firm belief that the evidence against the Amiraults was “formidable” and that she was entirely convinced “those children were abused at day care center by the three defendants.”

What does this say about her candidacy? (Ms. Coakley declined to be interviewed.) If the current attorney general of Massachusetts actually believes, as no serious citizen does, the preposterous charges that caused the Amiraults to be thrown into prison—the butcher knife rape with no blood, the public tree-tying episode, the mutilated squirrel and the rest—that is powerful testimony to the mind and capacities of this aspirant to a Senate seat. It is little short of wonderful to hear now of Ms. Coakley’s concern for the rights of terror suspects at Guantanamo—her urgent call for the protection of the right to the presumption of innocence.

If the sound of ghostly laughter is heard in Massachusetts these days as this campaign rolls on, with Martha Coakley self-portrayed as the guardian of justice and civil liberties, there is good reason.